Connie Chung raised the issue near the end of last night’s interview on ABC when she asked Gary Condit if he thinks the public will be “disappointed” that he “didn’t come forward and reveal details” about his relationship with Chandra Levy.

I didn’t learn a darn thing last night, but I’m not blaming Connie. Short of applying brute force, I don’t know what an interviewer is supposed to do to force the truth out of someone like Rep. Condit, who seems intent on evading difficult or embarrassing questions.

As a result of the congressman’s evasions, what viewers saw last night was a 30-minute cat-and-mouse game.

Chung hammered away at Condit with questions about his relationship with Chandra, his refusal to take a lie-detector test supervised by the Washington police, and the fate of a watch box he threw away in a sidewalk trash can.

And he dodged and weaved at will.

Instead of responding to her questions directly, he preferred to recite rehearsed statements about his 34-year marriage, his imperfection as a husband, and some vague request supposedly from the Levy family that he refrain from revealing details about his relationship with their daughter.

Like many another high-profile interview, this one played like a big opportunity for a troubled newsmaker to come on TV and issue denial after denial.

We viewers know that going in and yet we tune in every time.

And that’s the whole reason the networks go after these interviews in the first place.